Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 20:
“means for obtaining a flow control status for uplink traffic associated with a data radio bearer (DRB) mapped to a network session;”
“means for generating a flow control indication for uplink traffic associated with the network session in accordance with the flow control status associated with the DRB;”
“and means for applying the flow control indication to uplink traffic associated with multiple DRBs mapped to the network session.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rossbach et al. (US 20260046680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rossbach user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to: (0034; UE with a processor and memory configured to perform implement the embodiments)
obtain a flow control status (0025; current traffic information; 0025; application connection has closed; and possibly 0061-0062; 0057; RRC signaling used for explicit QoS signaling which includes a header with bits indicating state of the flow; ) for uplink traffic (UL packets) associated with a data radio bearer (DRB) (0061-0062; 0057; 0025;The UE can determine to initiate a remapping of a QoS flow to a different DRB or to shift some packets to a different DRB without remapping the QoS flow. In still other aspects, the UE can provide assistance information to the network in, e.g., a UL transmission (UL SDAP PDU) or in UL RRC signaling, that can influence network operations with regard to the QoS flow or DRB. In one example, the UE can determine and indicate that a connection to an application has closed and that no further traffic should be expected on a particular QoS flow and/or DRB. 0055; The UE determines the UL data QoS binding either via explicit RRC signaling or via reflective QoS (RQoS) based on a DL data QoS marking) mapped to the network session (0048; perform Uplink Traffic verification (e.g., SDF to QoS flow mapping); 0053; Several QoS flows belonging to the same PDU session can be mapped to the same DRB)
generate a flow control indication for uplink traffic (0061-0064; On the UL, the UE can add QFI and D/C (data/control) in the UL SDAP header. The UL header is required when more than one QoS flow is mapped to a DRB (to indicate which QoS flow the DRB is carrying). [0066] Reflective QoS (RQoS) at the AS level allows the network to use the RDI field to steer specific QoS flows from one DRB to another, e.g., to enhance the QoS handling in a window of time.) associated with the network session (PDU session see above) in accordance with the flow control status (see mapping above (current or future traffic information) associated with the DRB; (see mapping above associated with a UE, a PDU session, and flows through a DRB hence the mapping); [0068] The UL control PDU 515 indicates to the network that no more packets belonging to the (remapped) QFI will be sent over the old DRB from that point onward.)
and apply the flow control indication (using the traffic information, DL flow information coming to the UE and decisions based on rules remapping and redirecting and stopping traffic to certain DRBs by providing an indication in the uplink traffic and header) to uplink traffic (UL communication) associated with multiple DRBs (old DRB and New remapped DRB) mapped to the network session (see mapping above for data flows, qos flows, and mapping to DRBs in a session). ([0062] On the UL, the UE can add QFI and D/C (data/control) in the UL SDAP header. The UL header is required when more than one QoS flow is mapped to a DRB (to indicate which QoS flow the DRB is carrying)); [0066] Reflective QoS (RQoS) at the AS level allows the network to use the RDI field to steer specific QoS flows from one DRB to another, e.g., to enhance the QoS handling in a window of time;[0068] The UL control PDU 515 indicates to the network that no more packets belonging to the (remapped) QFI will be sent over the old DRB from that point onward. See also 0073; teaches traffic indicators and activity timers and reset of parameters such as buffer status, residency times for flows)
Regarding claim 2, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 1, and is disclosed above, wherein the flow control status is associated with disabling or enabling a flow (remap flows, close connection) associated with the DRB (mapped DRB) based on a change to a wireless network state (network configurations and change in detected metrics) (0025 network operations with regard to the QoS flow). ([0127] wherein the information regarding current or upcoming traffic comprises a closing of a connection with an application. [0128] In a third example, the method of the second example, wherein the closing of the connection with the application triggers the UE to transmit an end of traffic indication to the network that, when transmitted, indicates the UE has no new uplink (UL) data or does not expect further DL data, wherein, based on the end of traffic indication, the network can release the connection [0082] [0082] In some embodiments, the UE (e.g., at an L2 layer) can detect events including, e.g., a high buffer status, a high buffer residency time, a high retransmission rate, a high round trip time (RTT), the UE nearing the packet delay budget (PDB) for a given flow (e.g., based on the PDCP discard timer or according to a new parameter configured by the network [0083] The various thresholds that may trigger feedback to the SDAP or RRC, e.g., buffer, residency time, retransmission and/or RTT thresholds, can be configured by the network. The network can further configure packet shifting and/or QoS flow remapping parameters for the UE, including, e.g., DRBs eligible for packet shifting, specific DRBs to which packets should be shifted, etc.)
Regarding claim 3, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 1, and is disclosed above, Rossbach further teaches wherein the flow control status (received information and flow metrics) disables (see mapping above, ending a DRB flow) or enables a flow (see mapping above; remapping to another DRB) associated with the DRB (currently connected DRB) based on a change to an internal modem state (UE modem state). ([0119] In 705, the UE receives or determines information related to a current or anticipated upcoming data usage for one or more applications. As described above, in some embodiments, the UE modem can receive information (e.g., metrics, meta-data) or commands (e.g., AT command) from the application layer regarding current or upcoming changes to QoS requirements for different traffic flows. In other embodiments, the UE/DAP/PDCP/RLC/MAC layers) can detect an event, e.g., a high buffer status or the arrival of a critical packet; [0079] In some embodiments, applications may indicate, to the lower layers of the UE (e.g., SDAP, RRC), current or upcoming changes to QoS requirements for different traffic flows by directly providing metrics and/or related meta-data to the modem. In other embodiments, an AT (e.g., “attention”) command, specified in TS 27.007, can be used to direct the modem to take some action.)
Regarding claim 4 Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 1, and is disclosed above, Rossbach further teaches wherein the flow control indication (0061-0064; On the UL, the UE can add QFI and D/C (data/control) in the UL SDAP header. The UL header is required when more than one QoS flow is mapped to a DRB (to indicate which QoS flow the DRB is carrying). [0066] Reflective QoS (RQoS) at the AS level allows the network to use the RDI field to steer specific QoS flows from one DRB to another, e.g., to enhance the QoS handling in a window of time.) is applied to uplink traffic associated with the multiple DRBs mapped to the network session (0126] In a first example, a method performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session including one or more quality of service (QoS) flows and multiple data radio bearers (DRB) for communications with a network) in accordance with the flow control status associated with the DRB (0025; current traffic information; 0025; application connection has closed; and possibly 0061-0062; 0057; RRC signaling used for explicit QoS signaling which includes a header with bits indicating state of the flow; ) satisfying one or more conditions. (0099; Some packets, e.g., control data, may be eligible to be remapped to a different DRB when certain conditions are met based on network configuration. 0073; In other embodiments, current or anticipated upcoming delays, or the UE not meeting QoS requirements, on one DRB can trigger the UE to remap one or more UL packets for a QoS flow to a DRB different from the DRB mapped for the QoS flow, based on, e.g., LCH buffer status for a DRB.)
Regarding claim 5, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 4, and is disclosed above, Rossbach further teaches wherein the one or more conditions (qos requirements) include internal memory available (memory available based on buffer queue size exceeding a threshold) for data transfer failing to satisfy a threshold.(exceeding the usage threshold is equivalent to failing to keep it before a threshold, which leads to packet delay and starvation see 0086) (Detecting a high buffer usage status the UE (lower layers, e.g., service data adaptation protocol (SDAP), packet data convergence protocol (PDCP), radio link control (RLC) or medium access control (MAC) ) can detect events including, e.g., a high buffer status for a DRB/LCH, a high round trip time (RTT), a high amount of retransmissions (either on RLC or HARQ level)) [0083] The various thresholds that may trigger feedback to the SDAP or RRC, e.g., buffer, residency time, retransmission and/or RTT thresholds, can be configured by the network. The network can further configure packet shifting and/or QoS flow remapping parameters for the UE, including, e.g., DRBs eligible for packet shifting, specific DRBs to which packets should be shifted, etc; [0086] The lower layer queues 603 are configured with respective buffer thresholds or thresholds representing a buffer residency time. If the buffer size for the queue 603 exceeds the threshold a high buffer status can be detected at the UE 601. In the present example, the first lower layer queue 603a has a high buffer status that triggers an alarm or feedback message from the lower to the higher layers. to fulfill the packet delay budget or mitigate packet starvation. The second higher layer queue 602b can have a low buffer status within its respective threshold. The buffer status for the second queue 602b may be checked prior to selecting the DRB2 as the destination for the one or multiple packets of QFI 7.)
Regarding claim 6, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 4, and is disclosed above, Rossbach teaches wherein the one or more conditions include flow control being enabled for the multiple DRBs associated with the network session. (0076; 5G Advanced may allow for the one to many mapping of QoS flows to DRBs (one QoS flow to be mapped to multiple DRBs).)
Regarding claim 7, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 4, and is disclosed above, Rossbach further teaches wherein the one or more conditions include receiving or transmitting one or more packets (Fig 4 shows UL and DL flow to and away from the UE) associated with a wireless network procedure (Fig 4 shows network communication procedure) that applies to the multiple DRBs associated with the network session. (0126] In a first example, a method performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session including one or more quality of service (QoS) flows and multiple data radio bearers (DRB) for communications with a network)
Regarding claim 8, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 4, and is disclosed above, Rossbach further teaches The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions (0099; Some packets, e.g., control data, may be eligible to be remapped to a different DRB when certain conditions are met based on network configuration.) include receiving congestion control information from a network node. (0025; the UE receives information regarding rtt information used for congestion and delay information, retransmission information high buffer status and other metrics described in the prior art all indicative of congestion)
Regarding claim 11, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 1, and is disclosed above, Rossbach further teaches wherein the flow control status enables or disables (flow change and remapping) a flow associated with the DRB in accordance with an out-of-service state (examiner notes this is one element in an or limitations and since RRC change is mapped this element is not being elected), a radio link failure (RLF) event, (examiner notes this is one element in an or limitations and since RRC change is mapped this element is not being elected), or a change to a radio resource control (RRC) state. (0065; An end-marker may be used when the QoS flow to DRB mapping changes and is applicable to both reflective and RRC configured QoS mapping (see TS 38.300, TS 37.324, TS 38.331).0055; The UE determines the UL data QoS binding either via explicit RRC signaling or via reflective QoS (RQoS) based on a DL data QoS marking; 0114; UE assistance information can be transmitted via UL RRC to indicate to the network the intention to release the connection; 0117 UE assistance information can be transmitted via UL RRC to indicate to the network the intention to release the connection.)
Regarding claim 12, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 1, and is disclosed above, Rossbach further teaches wherein the uplink traffic is associated with an uplink grant. (Note the language some services meaning some do have physical uplink shared channels and some do not [0027] During operation, some services may utilize multiple data flows in the uplink (UL) and/or downlink (DL). From a physical channel perspective, there may be different control channels and shared channels for each stream or multiple streams may share a control channel and/or shared channel.)
Regarding claim 13, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 1, and is disclosed above, Rossbach further teaches The UE of claim 1, wherein the uplink traffic is not associated with an uplink grant. (Note the language some services meaning some do have physical uplink shared channels and some do not [0027] During operation, some services may utilize multiple data flows in the uplink (UL) and/or downlink (DL). From a physical channel perspective, there may be different control channels and shared channels for each stream or multiple streams may share a control channel and/or shared channel.)
Regarding claims 14-18, the claims inherit the same rejection as claims 1-8, and 11-13 above for reciting similar limitations in the form of a method claim. Rossbach teaches [0126] a method performed by a UE.
Regarding claims 20, the claims inherit the same rejection as claims 1 above for reciting similar limitations in the form of a method claim. Rossbach teaches [0005] UE apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20260046680 A1) in view of Ali et al. (US 20210176013 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Rossbach teaches the UE of claim 4, and is disclosed above, Rossbach does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more conditions include a number of physical layer grants within a time period failing to satisfy a threshold.
In an analogous art Ali teaches the one or more conditions include a number of physical layer grants within a time period failing to satisfy a threshold. ([0105] During the initial evaluation phase 310, the UE 115 may monitor for uplink grants for a period of time (e.g., using a counter), for a threshold number of uplink grants (e.g., eval_n1), or a combination thereof. A counter may be incremented (e.g., init_eval_ulgrant_count++) for each received uplink grant, and a threshold number of counts may be set for the counter (e.g., eval_n1 if counting up) If the counter reaches the threshold value (init_eval_ulgrant_count==eval_n1) during the initial evaluation phase 310 without the UE 115 detecting a false ACK (ack_is_not_ack_detected==false), the UE 115 may determine to enter the aggressive HARQ skipping mode 315 at 335)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the application to modify the teachings of [Rossbach] to include [using a grant count threshold in determining whether it is above or below a threshold] as is taught by [Ali].
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to [improve UE monitoring and dynamically changing network conditions [0003-0004]].
Regarding claims 19, the claims inherit the same rejection as claims 9 above for reciting similar limitations in the form of a method claim. Rossbach teaches [0126] a method performed by a UE.
Conclusion
Claim 10 is not rejected under any prior art rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDERRAHMEN H CHOUAT whose telephone number is (571)431-0695. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9AM to 5PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
Abderrahmen Chouat
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights